Raptor831

Stockalike RF Engine Configs v3.2.6 [01/20/19][RF v12]

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, MelancholyFlapper said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mvi1k06jc1yzgwn/CARFPatchStockalike.cfg?dl=0

Here's that config. It mayyyyyyy be totally wrong.

Ok, the structure looks fine, which (should) be handled in the generator. So good there. Few things though:

1) On the nosecone, is there a specific reason to use a thrust curve? Seems a rather odd addition for RCS systems, which should be pretty on/off instead of variable thrust.
2) ModuleRCSFX is depreciated, since all (or at least most) of that functionality is in stock. So you can remove that. Might be part of the issue.
3) You're probably undershooting the available volume (at least against stock) of the bottom/fueltank piece. 4000L is about in-line with the stock parts. Dunno if that's needed with RF's mass adjustments though.
4) You may want to basemass = -1 for the bottom piece, too, since it's not just a fuel tank.

That would be it from my initial guess. I don't play with this mod, so I can't speak to the balance. You might be in a better position for that.

If you'd like more feedback, let me know what isn't working for you and what you updated. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17.05.2016 at 1:51 AM, Raptor831 said:

Ok, after much work, I've upgraded the generator at http://bit.ly/rfstockalike  Should be much faster now, and it any new configs should be using the proper ullage/ignitions syntax. Let me know if you find errors.

What I found:

  1. Generator not write edited title into config.
  2. Same as above with tech levels.
  3. Thrust curves selector is unusable (just blank config name and don't generate curve).
  4. Mess with multiple fuel pairs configs (additional fuel pairs adds after last closing parenthesis in part config).

Example of generated engine config with those errors: https://yadi.sk/d/k7utusSvrpthn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Canis Dirus Leidy Thank you for the report, it was very helpful. Those items should be fixed now.

EDIT: Do note that browser caching is pretty insane for the new generator. You may need to clear your cache or use an incognito window to see the latest changes.

Edited by Raptor831

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question, especially for those that use Kartoffelkuchen's Launcher Pack:

The Merlin 1D has 3 different parts that are effectively upgrades of the same engine. So, 1D < 1D+ < 1D++. The only difference being thrust, really. While I was writing up configs for these, I was debating simply removing the two later engines in favor of the first one since RF sets up tech levels and handles upgrades like that internally. Would you all rather have 3 parts unlocked at varying tech nodes or one part that is progressively better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Raptor831 said:

Question, especially for those that use Kartoffelkuchen's Launcher Pack:

The Merlin 1D has 3 different parts that are effectively upgrades of the same engine. So, 1D < 1D+ < 1D++. The only difference being thrust, really. While I was writing up configs for these, I was debating simply removing the two later engines in favor of the first one since RF sets up tech levels and handles upgrades like that internally. Would you all rather have 3 parts unlocked at varying tech nodes or one part that is progressively better?

I believe the "one part that is progressively better" route is the best - and most realistic - to make. That's just my opinion, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, fallout2077 said:

I believe the "one part that is progressively better" route is the best - and most realistic - to make. That's just my opinion, though.

This for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll go with the one part with upgrades for now, unless there's a ton of feedback in favor of the other option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raptor831 said:

Ok, I'll go with the one part with upgrades for now, unless there's a ton of feedback in favor of the other option.

Wise decision!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Canis Dirus Leidy said:

Found another bug in generator: missing closing parenthesis in propellant configurations, if "Default RCS setup" button has been used (example of wrong config).

Thanks again for the report. Fixed again. Clear your cache to see the new version (or just use an incognito window).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found, why LV-909 lost its effects even if RealPlume installed (messed config that assigned non-existents plumes). Here is correct (and tweaked) RealPlume configuration:

Spoiler

@PART[liquidEngine3]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleEnginesAJE*]]:FOR[RealPlume]
{
	PLUME
	{
		name = Hypergolic-OMS-White
		transformName = thrustTransform
		localRotation = 0,0,0
		flarePosition = 0,0,-0.35
		plumePosition = 0,0,0
		fixedScale = 0.3
		energy = 1
		speed = 1.44
	}
	PLUME
	{
		name = Hydrolox-Upper
		transformName = thrustTransform
		localRotation = 0,0,0
		flarePosition = 0,0,0.6
		plumePosition = 0,0,1
		fixedScale = 0.5
		energy = 1
		speed = 1.43
	}
	@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
	{
		@name = ModuleEnginesRF
	}
	@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]
	{
		%type = ModuleEnginesRF
		@CONFIG[Aerozine50+NTO]
		{
			%powerEffectName = Hypergolic-OMS-White
		}
		@CONFIG[LqdHydrogen+LqdOxygen]
		{
			%powerEffectName = Hydrolox-Upper
		}
	}
}

 

 

Edited by Canis Dirus Leidy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Canis Dirus Leidy Couple of points on that patch

  1. There's not way that part could ever end up with ModuleEnginesAJE* - that condition is unnecessary
  2. :FOR[RealPlume] should only be used within the RealPlume mod, since it tells ModuleManager that that the RealPlume mod is installed.  You're probably looking for :BEFORE[RealPlume]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp, looks like the RealPlume configs were all using the :FOR[RealPlume] pass. Not a good way to do that. :blush: I've also added Svm420's newer configs to the repo and made sure all of those are running on :BEFORE[RealPlume] instead.

Also, @blowfish, to play nice with AJE I just need to ensure that the configs don't replace the ModuleEnginesAJE*, correct?

Last, I've updated the Squad engines' config using the new generator code. Wanted to release this one into the wild to make sure it was working properly. New release, download from GitHub. CKAN should update when it polls the repo next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raptor831 said:

Also, @blowfish, to play nice with AJE I just need to ensure that the configs don't replace the ModuleEnginesAJE*, correct?

That should be sufficient, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like (most?) part of Squad engines needs config rework, due to tech tree changes in the times of 1.0.X. For example: LV-909 was moved to "Advanced Rocketry" node and LV-T45 ("Basic Rocketry") became available before LV-T30 ("General rocketry").

P.S. Plus I don't fully understand how configs tech levels related to stock tech tree in case of nuclear motors (LV-N in config have TL3, but "Nuclear Propulsion"  alway was (IIRC) between "Heavier Rocketry" and "Very Heavy Rocketry" columns" in tech tree)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't gotten into much career balancing for Stockalike, since I play sandbox mostly. Career never felt right for me, for various reasons. Also, RF tech levels are unlocked in the nodes spelled out in the generator. Which makes problems when engines are unlocked in different nodes. Though, this could have changed in RF but I don't remember hearing about that.

I've always tried to avoid messing with the engines as much as possible for the sake of mod compatibility. Getting into career balancing may not quite be in-scope for this mod, but it also might need to be? For those running Stockalike in a career, do you have thoughts? I don't have a problem altering tech nodes, but that seems a much larger thing than just engines. To me, to do it properly, you'd need a Realism Overhaul - Lite kind of thing (which has been tried a few times). Or maybe we'd just need a CTT patch for 6.4x scale or something, or use RP-0 as a base and tweak for the Almost Realism Overhaul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, I've added Kartoffelkuchen's Launchers Pack (SpaceX for now, Atlas still forthcoming) and Cormorant Aeronology (Space Shuttle kit) to the repo. Anyone playing with those mods, do download from the GitHub repo and let me know if those are working fine. Note, I haven't made fuel tank configs for the various Cormorant pieces, so the catch-all tank patch may do odd things, and as always PartSwitch and IFS may add much chaos to the configs.

LATE EDIT: I pushed a new update because @Starwaster informed me of a bug in the configs, so thanks! Apparently, the flow mode is "resourceFlowMode" and not "ResourceFlowMode". The generator will be fixed later, but it seems the flow mode doesn't get set if the capitalization is wrong. Also, I changed the install a bit, so CKAN might take a bit to be updated.

Edited by Raptor831

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to pressure fed engines! Not having them makes early career pretty difficult; tough to do ullage without RCS. 

Question: Is it realistic for hypergolic engines to have a limited number of ignitions? My understanding is that the fuels react on contact, and no ignitor system is necessary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Traches said:

Looking forward to pressure fed engines! Not having them makes early career pretty difficult; tough to do ullage without RCS. 

Question: Is it realistic for hypergolic engines to have a limited number of ignitions? My understanding is that the fuels react on contact, and no ignitor system is necessary. 

Pressure-fed engines do not eliminate the need for ullage :wink:.

That myth lol. What is dead may never die!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Svm420 said:

Pressure-fed engines do not eliminate the need for ullage :wink:.

That myth lol. What is dead may never die!

Hey! Do pressure-fed engines eliminate the need for ullage??? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Svm420 said:

Pressure-fed engines do not eliminate the need for ullage :wink:.

That myth lol. What is dead may never die!

Alright, if you want to be technical: Pressure fed, hypergolic engines with bladder tanks. Not all engines and thrusters require ullage, but as far as I can tell all of the engines in this config do. 

2 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:

Being hypergolic also does not mean that it can support multiple ignitions.

Quoting the RF OP:

Quote

*Various hypergolics. (...stuff...) Further, another key advantage is that they do not need ignition: hypergolic means that if the two substances are put in contact, they will burn with no outside trigger.


I don't think it makes sense for a hypergolic probe engine not much bigger than an RCS thruster to require ullage and only have one or two ignitions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Traches Pressure fed engines probably should have more ignitions than their pump fed brethren, but they most certainly need ullage still. Just because you use helium to push the fuels out doesn't mean the fuels are near the bottom of the tank. Bring RCS along to push. RCS is, I believe, modeled on a bladder-fed idea, so they don't need ullage.

Hypergolic mixtures do ignite on contact, but their engines still suffer from wear. Ignitions, as a metric, is a combination of fuel mixture and engine design. Proton launch engines only have 1 ignition, but they use hypergolic fuels. Especially turbopump-fed engines, you still have to spin up the pumps. And, then make sure they don't wear out or break. You only get so long before the bearings/lubricants fail. OMS engines are still rated only to a certain burn time, even if those times are quite long.

All that said, ullage/ignitions are still new in these configs, so not all engines are set up. The Ant engine probably should be unlimited ignitions, pressure fed, and maybe not subject to ullage. LV909 should still need ullage, but maybe that one is pressure fed, and probably have around 12-24 ignitions. KW SPS should be pressure fed, 24 ignitions (possibly more), and require ullage (Apollo still needed that). None of those are set up, unfortunately because I haven't gotten to them yet. The newest SpaceX Launchers Pack has this, as does the Cormorant set I just added.

Also, thrust curves for SRBs are a thing. Only a few SRBs have them, but it is configurable. (And right now the curves tend to blow up the rocket...) Also, SRBs should be using real solid fuels (PBAN, HTPB, etc) and not "SolidFuel". None of them do this currently. This is still an in-progress mod, and will probably always be. So, if there's things you find that should be different, submit an issue on the GitHub repo (or better, submit a PR). That way I can least keep track of what needs to be done, and have a reminder when I forget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.